Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns

Effect of fabrication stages and cementation on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia crowns

“…49,50 The teeth were scanned with a 3-dimensional (3D) laboratory scanner (D900; 3Shape), and CAD design software (Dental System; 3Shape) was used to design a crown with identical external contours for each tooth. The designed crown data were processed with CAM software (CORiTEC iCAM V5; iMES-iCORE), and CAD-CAM ceramic crowns were milled from presintered monolithic zirconia blocks (StarCeram Z-Nature; H.C. Starck) in a 5-axis computer numeric control dental milling machine (CORiTEC 550i; iMES-iCORE) and sintered (Sinterofen HT-S Speed; Mihm-Vogt) according to the manufacturer's instructions.…”

“…38,49,52 The camera attached to the microscope was calibrated using a single calibration slide (MR100; AmScope) with a precision stage micrometer (0.01 mm). 38,49,52 The specimens were aligned perpendicularly to the evaluation sight of the microscope and manually rotated to measure each point.…”

“…24,26,47 However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, reports regarding the accuracy of fit for monolithic zirconia crowns at different stages of fabrication are limited. 48,49 The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different stages of fabrication and cementation on the vertical marginal discrepancy (VMD) of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia crowns. The null hypothesis was that no differences would be found in VMD values obtained after different stages of fabrication, before and after glazing of the crown and after cementation.…”

Ajuste marginal e interno de restaurações de cerâmica pura fabricadas em CAD / CAM: uma revisão da literatura

“…24 Besides that, a parallel reported in literature concerns the association between a software tool that allows to adjust cement spacing and marginal adaptation. [25][26][27] For the CAD/ CAM E4D system (E4D Dentist system; D4D Technologies), according to Mosley et al, 25 the best spacing would be of 30 µm or 60 µm in terms of marginal maladjustment. The spacing of 50 µm is also supported in literature.…”

“…The spacing of 50 µm is also supported in literature. [25][26][27] Despite being still controversial, a difference can also be noticed concerning the way that tooth preparation digitalization occurs. According to Ahrberg et al, 28 direct digitalization shows a better result for marginal precision in relation to indirect ones, when a conventional mold is done and the plaster model is scanned.…”